Views From Kennewick

Saturday, February 02, 2008

First They Came for PigletExcessive deference to Islam.National ReviewBy Mark Steyn

My favorite headline of the year so far comes from The Daily Mail in Britain: "Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As 'Anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."Her Majesty's government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient. So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity" Britain's home secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."Well, yes, one sort of sees what she means. Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" - in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity." But I don't recall even Neville Chamberlain explaining, as if to a five-year-old, that there is nothing German about the wish to terrorize and invade, and that this is entirely at odds with the core German values of sitting around eating huge sausages in beer gardens while wearing lederhosen.

Still, it should add a certain surreal quality to BBC news bulletins: "The Prime Minister today condemned the latest anti-Islamic activity as he picked through the rubble of Downing Street looking for his 2008 Wahhabi Community Outreach Award. In a related incident, the anti-Islamic activists who blew up Buckingham Palace have unfortunately caused the postponement of the Queen's annual Ramadan banquet."A few days ago, a pre-trial hearing in an Atlanta courtroom made public for the first time a video made by two Georgia Tech students. Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee went to Washington and took footage of key buildings, and that "casing video" then wound up in the hands of Younis Tsouli, an al-Qaeda recruiter in London. As the film shot by the Georgia students was played in court, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee's voice could be heard on the soundtrack: "This is where our brothers attacked the Pentagon.""Allahu Akbar," responds young Ahmed. God is great.How "anti-Islamic" an activity is that? Certainly, not all Muslims want to fly planes into the Pentagon. But those that do do it in the name of their faith. And anyone minded to engage in an "anti-Islamic activity" will find quite a lot of support from leading Islamic scholars. Take, for example, the "moderate" imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who once observed that "we will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawa" - i.e., the non-incendiary form of Islamic outreach.What could be more moderate than that? No wonder Mr. al-Qaradawi is an associate of the Islamic Society of Boston, currently building the largest mosque in the northeast, and also a pal of the present mayor of London. The impeccably moderate mullah was invited to address a British conference sponsored by the police and the Department of Work and Pensions on "Our Children, Our Future." And, when it comes to the children, Imam Qaradawi certainly has their future all mapped out. "Israelis might have nuclear bombs," he said, "but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation." As Maurice Chevalier used to say, thank heaven for little girls, they blow up in the most delightful way.The British home secretary would respond that not all moderate imams are as gung-ho to detonate moppets. Which is true. But, by insisting on re-labeling terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam as "anti-Islamic activity," Her Majesty's government is engaging not merely in Orwellian Newspeak but in self-defeating Orwellian Newspeak. The broader message it sends is that ours is a weak culture so unconfident and insecure that if you bomb us and kill us our first urge is to find a way to flatter and apologize to you.Here's another news item out of Britain this week: A new version of The Three Little Pigs was turned down for some "excellence in education" award on the grounds that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues" and, as a result, the judges "had concerns for the Asian community" - i.e., Muslims. Non-Muslim Asians - Hindus and Buddhists - have no "concerns" about anthropomorphized pigs.This is now a recurring theme in British life. A while back, it was a local government council telling workers not to have knick-knacks on their desks representing Winnie-the-Pooh's porcine sidekick, Piglet. As Martin Niemöller famously said, first they came for Piglet and I did not speak out because I was not a Disney character and, if I was, I'm more of an Eeyore. So then they came for the Three Little Pigs, and Babe, and by the time I realized my country had turned into a 24/7 Looney Tunes it was too late, because there was no Porky Pig to stammer "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" and bring the nightmare to an end.Just for the record, it's true that Muslims, like Jews, are not partial to bacon and sausages. But the Koran has nothing to say about cartoon pigs. Likewise, it is silent on the matter of whether one can name a teddy bear after Mohammed. What all these stories have in common is the excessive deference to Islam. If the Three Little Pigs are verboten when Muslims do not yet comprise ten percent of the British population, what else will be on the blacklist by the time they're, say, 20 percent?A couple of days later, Elizabeth May, leader of Canada's Green party (the fourth-largest political party), spoke out against her country's continued military contribution to the international force in Afghanistan. "More ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage," she said, "will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a jihad." As it happens, Canada did not send troops to the Crusades, mainly because the fun was over several centuries before Canada came in existence. Six years ago, it was mostly the enemy who took that line, Osama bin Laden raging at the Great Satan for the fall of Andalusia in 1492, which, with the best will in the world, it's hard to blame on Halliburton. But since then, the pathologies of Islamism have proved surprisingly contagious among western elites.

Monday, January 28, 2008

In Defense of the Constitution

News & Analysis001/January 28, 2008

CAIR: Demanding Israel Appease Hamas Terrorists

On 21 January, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, D.C. based Islamist terrorist supporting front group, issued an "Action Alert" calling on readers to contact American political leaders in order to pressure Israel to lift a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza.

The "humanitarian crisis" developed when Israel reduced deliveries of fuel, food, and medicines in response to rocket attacks by members of the Hamas terrorist group. Hamas terrorists have been firing rockets into Southern Israel since taking power by force in June.

"Because American taxpayers provide Israel with billions of dollars of economic support each year, we have the right and the responsibility to demand that Israel abide by American and universal human rights standards and end its practice of collective punishment against the Palestinian populations. Such practice amounts to war crimes."

CAIR, true to its lap-dog propagandizing on behalf of Islamist terrorism, states that the United States has the "right and the responsibility to demand Israel abide by American and universal human rights standards."

But what about the rights of the Israeli civilians terror murdered or wounded by the Hamas rockets? Or does CAIR consider all Israelis to be soldiers?

Why doesn't CAIR demand that Hamas abide by "American and universal human rights standards" and stop the rockets? Because CAIR has proven links to and was founded by Hamas members and supporters.

"Seventy-nine percent of Gaza households live under the poverty line, 40 percent suffer from unemployment and almost half the population in the Gaza Strip is made up of children."

Hamas rules Gaza with an iron fist, claims to represent the Palestinian people and yet is unable to provide even basic civil services in an area of about 139 square miles. But yet, Hamas seems to have plenty of money for weapons, rockets, and ammunition despite the "Israeli blockade".

Why is it that Hamas, faced with this "humanitarian crises", would prefer to import weapons over food for the very Palestinian civilians it claims to protect?

What does it say about Hamas that they'd rather kill Israeli civilians than feed "almost half the population in the Gaza Strip" that is "made up of children"?

Of course, CAIR can't criticize Hamas; to do so would be to criticize family.

So, the world will condemn Israel for cutting off supplies to a terrorist government and will say nothing to Hamas terrorists who would starve their own children in a propaganda exercise designed to make Israel appear to be the aggressor.

What does this say about CAIR that they condemn Muslim children to starvation?

===============================================================

Special note: I invite you to read the information at the below link. Indonesia, an Asian country, where the USA is the number one foreign investor is having problems with radical Islam.

The article displays, in start terms, what happens when radical Islam gains a foothold in a supposedly "secular" nation; how it makes headway into state affairs and how the minority terrorizes the majority using religion.

Remember, if we won't stand for the least among us, who will stand for us?